The state is stepping in to address critical and chronic problems in schools in some of New Jersey’s neediest districts.

Repairs are slated for 69 schools in 21 districts; three of those schools are in the Trenton district.

The extensive agenda of repairs followed the state Schools Development Authority’s announcement two weeks ago that it has revamped its approach to “emergent projects,” those deemed necessary in the districts’ facilities. With $100 million, the SDA intends to fund those projects “under a reformed, common sense program and review process.”

The SDA also promises “a long-overdue overhaul of the review process so that it is fair, exhaustive, balances prioritization needs, and properly considers cost efficiency.”

Trenton school officials argue there was precious little common sense involved in the selection of the projects the SDA has prioritized. While the repairs are certainly necessary, Trenton school officials say they are among those with lower priority in $36 million worth of work that waits in the district.

Two of the projects seek to address problems with the heating, cooling and ventilation systems at Trenton Central High School’s West Campus and at the Wilson Elementary School, The Times’ Matt Fair has reported. The third is intended to replace the water distribution system at the Hedgepeth-Williams School.

Why, though, did the SDA pass over other, higher-priority projects? And why did it disregard the district’s input on identifying the direst situations?

Ray Broach, interim superintendent of Trenton schools, is baffled by the choice of those three projects from the list of nearly 100 urgent problems submitted by the Trenton district. “The ones that, to us, presented serious health problems, structural problems, environmental and instructional problems, were ignored,” he says.

Some of those overlooked projects may qualify for other funding programs through SDA, according to an authority spokeswoman.

If that is the case, that possibility should have been communicated to the schools presumably left in the lurch.

We understand that the SDA’s resources are scarce and highly sought throughout the state for schools overwhelmed by structural deficiencies. Attending to a leaking roof or crumbling wall diverts attention from education.

In light of the limited funding, it would seem logical for the SDA to consult closely with the districts it is striving to help in order to allocate those resources to the areas of greatest need.

Not doing so appears to fly in the face of its promised “common sense program and review process.”